The Pacific Northwest Salmonoid Habitat Projects (PNSHP) data set brings together data on habitat restoration actions related directly or indirectly to salmonoid habitat in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Actions are categorized in to one of 82 action types and grouped by a geo-coded work site. Work sites are further grouped by project. Project-level information is available on the source (who reported the project, often a funder or another database) and expenditures. For many projects, information on the extent of the action taken (e.g. length of stream or road treated, area treated) is also available, though how this information is structured varies widely by action-type, source, and project complexity.
In this document, we include projects between 1991 and 2015 (25 years). During this period, the number of ESA-listed salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) grew from zero to 19 (including steelhead). The first listing was Snake River sockeye, listed as endangered in 1991. The most recent listing was the Oregon coast coho, listed as threatened in 2008. This period also covers major changes in available financing for the habitat projects. A major population boom in the region, especially in the Puget Sound basin, increased the tax base for state-funded projects (while simultaneously increasing pressure on salmon habitat via development and water demands). The financial crisis of 2008 also lead to funding cuts across government agencies. Because projects are added to the database in batches and in a rolling fashion, I include only projects up to 2015.
Due to differences in how projects are funded, organized, and reported across sources, project data are structured in different ways. Some projects are quite complex, spanning dozens work sites miles apart with different actions at each. Some are simple, consisting of a single action at a single worksite. Many are in-between, consisting of a handful of work site with the same action or a single work site with many actions.
To make matters more complex, project costs (i.e. expenditures) are always reported at the project level (rather than the action or worksite level), while it appears that metrics (i.e. extent of action) are sometimes reported at the project level, sometimes at the worksite level, and sometimes at the individual action level. This makes directly comparing average costs (i.e. expenditures per unit) between projects difficult.
Below, I present a typology of projects based on their structure. I distinguish between the number of worksites, the number of actions, and the consistency of action profiles (i.e. what actions are taken) across sites. I also include the number of projects that fall into each category. I have also begun work classifying the metric structures within these categories, but idiosyncrasies and edge cases have made creating a consistent, managable typology over metric structure difficult. This typology could also include project cost availabilty, which is about 66% for all projects.
The majority of projects fall into either the single work site, single action type category. Among multiple work site projects, the majority fall into the single action type category, which will greatly simplify subsequent analysis (at least when metrics are consistently reported within the project). For multiple action type projects, directly modeling average costs will be difficult, as distinguishing between spending on different action types is impossible. One approach may be to model individual actions and use multiple action type projects as a check, using single action type model results to project expected costs for multiple action type projects and compare projected and observed total project costs between the two.
All projects (n = 29,919)
- Single work site (n = 24,135)
- Single action type (n = 18,080)
- Multiple action types (n = 6,055)
- Multiple work sites (n = 5,784)
- Single action type (n = 3,101)
- Multiple action types (n = 2,683)
- Single action type at each site (n = 168)
- Multiple action types at some or all sites (n = 2,515)
- Same action types at all sites (n = 1,912)
- Different action types at some or all sites (n = 603)
Thirty-eight different organizations, referred to as sources, contribute data to PNSHP. Below you will find a glossery of each source code.
ASOTIN - Asotin County Conservation Distrcit (Asotin County is the southeastern-most county in Washington and contains important Snake River watersheds)
BLM - Bureau of Land Managmeent
BOR - Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the Interior agency responsible for water storage and irrigation, including federal dams)
BPA - Bonneville Power Administration
CBFWA - Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (Now defunct group of state, federal, and tribal agencies organized to advise BPA on habitat improvement efforts)
CHEHALIS - Chehalis Tribe (Southewestern Washington)
COLVILLE - Colville Tribe (Northeastern Washington)
COQUILLE - Coquille Tribe (Southwestern Oregon)
COWLITZ - Cowlitz Tribe (Northeastern Washington)
CRITFC - Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission
DUCKS UNLIMITED - Ducks Unlimited
FISHER FISHERIES - Fisher Fisheries Consultancy
GRAND RONDE - Grand Ronde Tribe (Central Western Oregon)
GRMWP - Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program (Northeastern Oregon river)
HABITAT WORK SCHEDULE - Washington State program for tracking projects by the 27 “Lead Entities”, local boards responsible for managing state salmon habitat spending
ID OSC - Idaho Office of Species Conservation
IDAHODEQ - Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IDFG - Idaho Department of Fish and Game
IDFG SCREEN SHOP - Fish screen efforts for IDFG
KRITFWC - Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission (Southern Oregon river)
MONTANA WATER CENTER - Research instiute based at Montana State
NMFS - NOAA Fisheries
NOAA RESTORATION - NOAA Restoration Center
NRRSS - National River Restoration Science Synthesis project (a project of American Rivers)
NWIFC - Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
OR WATER TRUST - Oregon Water Trust
OWRI - Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory
PCSRF - Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (federal grant program adminstered by NOAA)
REO - United States Forest Service Region 6 Regional Ecosystem Office
SHOSHONE-BANNOCK - Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Southeastern Idaho)
SRFBD - Salmon Funding Recovery Board Database (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office grant program)
STREAMNET - Data project of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
WA DOE - Washington State Department of Ecology
WA RCO - Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
WA WATER TRUST - Washington Water Trust
WDFW FISHWAY - Washinton State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fishway Program
WDFW WRIP - WDFW Watershed Recovery Inventory Project
WDOT - Washington Department of Transportation
In this section, I visualize the number of actions in the PNSHP data set by (a) action type, (b) year, (c) basin, and (d) source (and cross-tabulations). Counts of projects are also presented by (a) year, (b) basin, and (c) source (and cross-tabulations). These figures illustrate trends in project and action quantity over time and differences in actions taken across space, while also highlighting potential differences in reporting across different sources and regions.
To view high-resolution figure, right click and select “Open image in new tab”.
In this section, I visualize reported expenditures over (a) action type, (b) year, (c) basin, and (d) source (and selected cross-tabulations). Note that a single project will fall into multiple action type categories if the project consists of multiple action types. All expenditures are converted to 2019 dollars via FRED Implicit Price Deflator. Three projects were removed as outliers in their spending levels (see note below).
Expenditures are available for 19,841 projects, or 66.3% of 29,919 projects. In total, the PNSHP data set reports $2,494,738,235 in expenditures across all 25 years.
To view high-resolution figure, right click and select “Open image in new tab”.
Note: These figures represent expenditures per project with reported costs.
Note: These figures represent expenditures per action for projects with reported costs. Results by action still in progress and are omitted here.